My Undelivered Letter to Noam Chomsky
September 1, 2019

Dear Sir,

I recently watched an edisode of UpFront where you were interviewed by Mehdi Hasan. There, you described Donald Trump as the "greater evil" of the 2 recent candidates for the U.S. Presidency and stated that anyone with a moral understanding would vote to keep the greater evil out. While I agree with you on the latter, I disagree with the former. I'm writing to you with the presumption that you might be interested in why someone who voted for Mr. Trump did so feeling that, not only did such a vote have a moral basis, but that Mrs. Clinton was the greater evil in this contest.

Any facts or historical interpretations I mention in this correspondence are not meant to educate you on such things; given your stature and background, that would be ridiculous. I merely wish to pass along the foundation for my conclusions.

You have mentioned 2 great dangers to our civilization, nuclear war and environmental damage. Of these potential crises, nuclear war, the worst, seems the least likely at this moment. While the world isn't lacking for tensions, none seem to be of the caliber we were familiar with as younger people where the use of nuclear weapons was discussed and planned for as a solution to then-current events. This is not to say the threat is non-existent...but I believe it exists more likely in the form of individual terrorist acts than large-scale exchanges between nation-states. There has been fear expressed of having Donald Trump in direct control over the use of nuclear weapons; I find this to be absurd. There have been many truly dangerous men in charge of these weapons, men to whom human lives meant little to nothing. If some of the most evil men in the history of our species could restrain themselves is it unreasonable to expect the same from a man who has never demonstrated a murderous disregard for human life? Regarding nuclear war, a far more instantaneously devastating and irreversible prospect than environmental issues, I would say that Mrs. Clinton is the more frightening candidate. You have mentioned tensions along the Russian border as being potential triggers for nuclear conflict, which implies that tensions with Russia, in general, may escalate beyond control. Here, I must remind you that it was Hillary Clinton, in the second presidential debate as I recall, who delivered shockingly inflammatory anti-Russian rhetoric while Mr. Trump has all along maintained a moderate tone towards Russia.

Regarding the second danger you mentioned, environmental damage, since I agree that it's possible Mr. Trump's policies may have negative impact on the environment, I'll simply concede the point.

In your appearance, you did not mention what I believe is a third potential danger to our society, the coming oligarchy. While this last may or may not wind up being as physically destructive as the others, it's as much a human catastrophe as any form of slavery. It's easy to trace the recent path and rise of truly global elite.

Prior to the 1990s, the post-WWII world had been divided into 3 power structures whose actions had the most profound significance on the global stage due to their ecomonic, military and political influence: the United states, the Soviet Union and China. After the fall of the Soviet Union, we began to witness a movement toward a worldwide economic integration never before seen in the history of our civilization. Political and military posturing and adventurism has continued, but largely in service, as ever, of economic goals. Over the past 25 years, this integration has proceeded steadily; today, we have, more or less, a single global economy. The individual national players continue to jockey for position, of course, but all as part of the same system.

Coincident with the rise of the world economy has been the appearance trans-national corporation. This business entity is distinct from the more familiar multinational company in that it has no true allegiance to a home country. Companies like this act in a truly global manner, taking advantage of one country's labor laws to produce goods to be sold in a different country where the standard of living allows the cheaply-produced product to be sold more profitably. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, merely that it happens. The enormous increase in the power of information systems has aided the efforts of the transnational business and all the aforementioned factors, working in unison, have led to a vast increase in the productivity of the global workforce. The increase in wealth brought into being from this surge of productivity has not, however, made it to the hands of the common man. Yes, a flood of cell phones and big-screen TVs, bought mostly on credit, has washed over the world, but the real money, uncountable trillions of dollars, has flowed mostly into the pockets of an invisible few. Political influence, a commodity always for sale, can now be purchased with dizzying sums available and not only here, but anywhere, in a one-world system.

As usual, left out in the division of spoils, has been the everyday person. The uber-rich act in ways to protect what they have, with a decreasing need to disguise their aims since there's no real counter-balance to the power of a unified world order. The terrorist, the entity various governments would point to a such a counterforce, is, despite various atrocities, merely a distraction, another justification for the militarization of local police forces.

I'm not against globalization as a concept and would love to live in a world, a single society, whose government existed only to serve the greatest good. That's not the world we live in and, in my view, we're careening towards a form of globalization that will not be desirable to the mass of humanity. But it is coming and this world order will exist largely to perpetuate itself, be exclusionary by nature and, once fully formed, could require gigantic effort to displace. It's being dreamed of and tested by some of our smartest and championed by the most determined. Anything short of the physical destruction of our worldwide society would be preferable to its existence. I cannot say strongly enough that we should undo from this form of globalization and work towards a more desirable form, one that serves humanity as a whole. A first step in rejecting what is happening might be to turn away from those who promote it and look to alternative leadership.

A man who might have been an ideal leader in putting the common man first was Bernie Sanders. Had the it come down to Trump vs. Sanders, I would've voted for Sanders...and been wrong to do so. After losing in the Democratic Primaries, Mr. Sanders was asked if he stood behind the unflattering things he'd said about Mrs. Clinton during the contest. Mr. Sanders repudiated his earlier stand against Mrs. Clinton, exposing his own hypocrisy. It's been put forth that he may have swung his support to Mrs. Clinton for largely the reason you have mentioned, namely, that she's the lesser of two evils, but I could've maintained respect for him had he stood behind his earlier statements while still preferring Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Trump.

Trump vs. Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton, arguably the embodiment of the political class, is also in the business, through her family's charitable foundation, of eliciting contributions and speaking fees from the very people who would be leading a future oligarchy. A self-decribed globalist, in the employ of various global power structures, she is exactly and precisely the type of leader who would take us further down the path towards the sort of unwanted world control referred to above. The path Hillary Clinton would take is largely clear, evidenced by both her actions as a public servant and her published works as a private citizen. It's my own opinion that Mrs. Clinton's policies are more easily identified as the greater danger simply because they're known.

While it may seem a paradox to describe a world-famous billionaire as an outsider to nascent global control mechanisms, I feel Mr. Trump, as an iconoclast and evident nationalist, can be accurately described as an outsider to the political arena. As you yourself have noted, Mr. Trump is essentially an unknown as a political operator. While this is hardly the resume of an ideal President, and while Mr. Trump's ultimate policy objectives may be a mystery -perhaps even to himself- they're not inherently dangerous because they are unrevealed. Yes, it may be justifiably argued that placing such power into the hands of someone whose aims may not be predictable is dangerous in itself, but there are aspects of the direction Mr. Trump would lead us that can be deduced. For example, it's seems clear to me, from his own pronouncements, he would have us renogotiate or withdraw from some international entanglements. Electing Mr. Trump is undoubtedly a risk when compared to the near-certainty of what Hillary Clinton would do...but when the risk involves the potential for avoiding a highly undesirable outcome, it's worth taking when measured against the certainty of that outcome.

Is this a preferrable method to avoid a future entrenched global power structure that serves only a small fraction of our civilization? That's debatable...but it is something, in contrast to the lack of an answer to this challenge offered by Mrs. Clinton. A vote for Mr. Trump was thus, in my opinion, a moral decision. Months have passed since this was originally written and my view has not changed: I voted for a nationalist and got one.

Respectfully,

Donald Showalter